It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
OT: Mattison did you see the new paper in nature on levo amino acids?

Maybe. Are you referring to the Klussman et al. paper... something about Asymmetric Amplification? I did read that one... seems to be creating quite a stir, though I can really understand why. While I can see this paper having some practical value for OChemists, and industrial synthesis. I think this paper does little to resolve this issue of homochirality in biological systems.

Is there another paper I should be reading?


[edit on 12-6-2006 by mattison0922]




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
OT: Mattison did you see the new paper in nature on levo amino acids?

Maybe. Are you referring to the Klussman et al. paper... something about Asymmetric Amplification? I did read that one... seems to be creating quite a stir, though I can't really understand why. While I can see this paper having some practical value for OChemists, and industrial synthesis. I think this paper does little to resolve this issue of homochirality in biological systems.

Is there another paper I should be reading?


Aye, I'm referring to the Klussman paper. When I saw it, I first thought of you, haha.

Well I think it adds to other research. IIRC, I passed a paper on that proposed a cosmic explanation for a bias towards L-AA's. Then we could have such a bias amplified when deposited on the earth. Plausible?

It must be interesting that it doesn't matter whether the solution is 100:1 L : D or 100:99 L : D, a solution almost entirely L-AA results. It suggests that all we need is that original slight bias towards left-handed amino-acids.

[edit on 12-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Aye, I'm referring to the Klussman paper. When I saw it, I first thought of you, haha.

Yeah... it is one of my things.



Well I think it adds to other research.

Oh yes, absolutely. I'm definitely not trying to take away their thunder. It's an important paper no doubt about it.


It must be interesting that it doesn't matter whether the solution is 100:1 L : D or 100:99 L : D, a solution almost entirely L-AA results. It suggests that all we need is that original slight bias towards left-handed amino-acids.

Honestly, I am still trying to sort through this paper. This has been a tough read for me. I feel like I did on my first day of grad school or something with this one.

I do have a couple of concerns that I am not sure are entirely reasonable, and am waiting to hear back from some chemist buds of mine. I have discussed it on line elsewhere, where I did a really lousy job analyzing the paper. In short, I thought I understood it completely, but I didn't, and still don't. For the most part... I'm not ready to comment on it one way or the other... except maybe to note the potential importance of it.

But as I mentioned I don't think it solves this problem, but certainly could stand as a major stepping stone in the resolution of this problem.

Lastly... simply to keep the record straight... chirality is one of my own personal pet issues not an issue of the ID movement. In fact, the issue of chirality is more frequently brought up by creationists, and I don't recall and ID literature speaking to the chirality issue in any significant way.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
Lastly... simply to keep the record straight... chirality is one of my own personal pet issues not an issue of the ID movement. In fact, the issue of chirality is more frequently brought up by creationists, and I don't recall and ID literature speaking to the chirality issue in any significant way.


Yeah, I know - that's why I did the off-topic thing. I knew you'd be interested though.

Anyway, back to your scheduled ID bashing/defending, haha.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
The O & C forum here at ATS is often riddled with comments about only 'stupid' people believe in God. Furthermore, individuals like Dembski and Behe are often chastised for their perspective on the available data re: the origins of life.

As if they can't be serious scientists based on this perspective... as if no 'serious' scientist adheres to any belief in a God... Christian or otherwise.

This article would seem to dispell this notion.

Here are some highlights:

THE scientist who led the team that cracked the human genome is to publish a book explaining why he now believes in the existence of God and is convinced that miracles are real.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God"...

For Collins, unravelling the human genome did not create a conflict in his mind. Instead, it allowed him to “glimpse at the workings of God”.


It would appear that this scientist's faith in God has been strengthened, not weakened by the research he does.


“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

Collins joins a line of scientists whose research deepened their belief in God.


In fact:

Collins was an atheist until the age of 27, when as a young doctor he was impressed by the strength that faith gave to some of his most critical patients.


This particular sentiment is echoed by many scientists I know personally... usually in an off the record manner.

Like many scientists... Collins had no inner spiritual conflict in need of resolution when he came to believe.

“I was very happy with the idea that God didn’t exist, and had no interest in me.”


Collins, who describes himself as a theistic evolutionist, states he is 'deeply disappointed' at "the shrill voices that occupy the extremes of this spectrum have dominated the stage for the past 20 years."

Wow, this guy must be stupid, or else he's not a 'real' scientist... like with degrees and everything.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

TS, I don't have a problem with any of the things per se.... I don't think the site is a good resource for people who want to learn about evolution though. The TO site is much better.

Furthermore, my issue was more with madness using it to attack ID/creationism. Most of the info at that site isn't a part of any ID/creationist lit. I am familiar with.

The only 'claim' that I think could be related to ID was the 10th claim, and I explained earlier how it was... ummm.... flawed.

While I don't have a problem with the site in principle, I would never recommend someone check it out over TO or other pro-evolution site.

Thanks for trying to get the thread back on Topic


Ah, I gotcha.

I would agree that the site shouldn't be your first choice to learn about evolution. However, creationists do use some of the arguments (notably the "man came from monkeys" one) to slam evolution. At the same time, I don't agree with madness using those points to paint IDers and all creationists with the same brush.

Weird...I actually agreed with you on something...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ah, I gotcha.

I would agree that the site shouldn't be your first choice to learn about evolution. However, creationists do use some of the arguments (notably the "man came from monkeys" one) to slam evolution. At the same time, I don't agree with madness using those points to paint IDers and all creationists with the same brush.

Weird...I actually agreed with you on something...

Yeah... how about that.


I have heard that man came from monkeys used in a disparaging way... however, if ToE is valid... it's sort of true... man's ancestors could be loosely described as monkeys or apes. It's a bastardized, lousy description of the theory, but I don't think it's untrue per se... I would use it myself... I would say 'primate ancestor' but a monkey could be described as a primate ancestor

BTW, I'm not looking for something to disagree with you on.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
alrighty there, as i keep seeing that an ignorance of evolutionary theory is still prevalent among many who criticize it, i'm going to have to bump this thread.

so you don't have to bother going to the fist post, i'll repost the article and even some of the text

Top Ten Myths About Evolution


1. Humans Evolved From Monkeys

Humans and great apes had a common ancestor about 5 million years ago Humans and monkeys had a common ancestor about 50 million years ago. Nowhere, except in the most illiterate anti-evolution literature, will you find a claim that humans evolved from monkeys.



2. It’s Only A Theory

“Theory” does not mean “hypothesis” or “guess” “Theory” means an organized set of related ideas. If you have a set of previously disconnected observations, and you come up with a possible explanation, you have an organized set of related ideas - a theory. A theory that hasn't been confirmed is a hypothesis. People commonly but incorrectly talk as if theories and hypotheses are the same thing. All hypotheses are theories, but all theories are not hypotheses.

* Number Theory is the branch of mathematics that deals with the properties of numbers. Theories don't get much more proven than this.
* Quantum Theory is the theory that describes how and why atomic particles behave as they do. It has allowed us to build computers and lasers. There's nothing "theoretical" about it.
* Stress Theory is what engineers use to build buildings, bridges, and keep the wings on airplanes. It works.
* Music Theory illustrates another use of the word "theory," to mean the underlying principles of a subject as opposed to actual practice. Music Theory is the set of accepted conventions used in European music. Other conventions are possible. That's why Asian music sounds so different from ours.
* The Phlogiston Theory was the notion that heat was a substance that reacted with materials to explain combustion. It's wrong. But it's still a theory. The term "theory" has nothing to do with whether the ideas in question are right or wrong.



3. If Nobody Saw It, We Can’t Be Sure It Happened

If you find your house trashed and your TV and stereo missing, will you hesitate to call the police because nobody saw it happen? Would you want the judge to dismiss the case just because you only had forensic evidence, but no witnesses?



4. Science Can’t Say Anything About Origins

Maybe not. But once the origin happens, everything after that is history. And historical evidence is preserved in the physical record.


now here's one that i've seen a lot on here lately


5. Obsolete Concepts

Critics of evolution are fond of citing Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man (actually the tooth of a fossil pig erroneously claimed to be human). These both happened about 100 years ago. They can't cite any cases of false claims of ancient human fossils since then.

“Survival of the Fittest” was borrowed by Darwin from the economic writings of Herbert Spencer. What does “fittest” mean? It's not just a tautology, like saying "the winner of the Super Bowl is the team with the most points." There are objective features that make some creatures fitter than others. If you need to move fast in the water, there is one shape that works best and it's shared by squid, sharks, tuna, dolphins, ichthyosaurs, and nuclear submarines.



6. There Are No Intermediate Fossil Forms

This is a claim for which there is a monosyllabic definition: lie. Not error, which implies honest ignorance, but lie, because the people who make this claim are generally fully aware of the fossil record and simply choose to misrepresent it. Archaeopteryx, the earliest known fossil bird for a long time (some recent finds may be earlier) has a thoroughly reptilian skeleton with a bony tail, teeth, and four paws with jointed fingers (not merely the horny skin growths at the middle joint that a few modern birds have). And it has feathers. If that's not an intermediate, what is? More recently, evidence is accumulating that some dinosaurs had hair and feathers. If we'd lived 100 million years ago, we might have put birds, mammals and reptiles in the same class or at least put the divisions very differently from today. Therapsids are the intermediates between reptiles and mammals, crossopterygians and ichthyostegids are the intermediates between fish and amphibians, and so on.



7. Evolution Is Not Testable

Darwin suggested birds had evolved from reptiles in 1859; Archaeopteryx, a creature with a reptilian skeleton but feathers, was discovered in 1862.

Piltdown Man, the famous early fossil man hoax, actually vindicated evolution. The alleged fossil was controversial from the start precisely because it didn’t match evolutionary expectations. It had a modern human skull but an ancient apelike jaw (altered by someone who knew what he was doing), rather than a mix of features on both parts. It was like trying to fake a 1950 car by mixing parts from a 1980 car and a 1920 car. As more and more hominid fossils surfaced, Piltdown Man was increasingly seen as a side branch even if it did turn out to be genuine. It just didn't match the other finds.



8. Evolution Means Humans are Just Animals

Are you a vegetable or mineral? Humans have hair and nurse their young just like all other mammals. Traits like nurturing, cooperation and monogamy are often favored by evolution because they enhance survival of the species.



9. Evolution is Just Random

Is the following number sequence random: 592653589793238462643383279? It not only looks random: it is random. But lacking in meaning? No. These are the digits of pi beginning with the fourth decimal place.

Random does not mean “meaningless.” The scientific meaning of random is that something cannot be predicted with better accuracy than that predicted by statistics. The phenomenon is its own simplest description. Biological systems are far too complex to describe or predict mathematically. We have incomplete information, and significant events like climate change or asteroid impact are unpredictable.



10. Complexity Cannot Arise Naturally

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often paraphrased as:

* ”Things always go from bad to worse”
* ”Disorder in the Universe is always increasing"

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy, which is defined as (Heat Absorbed in a process)/Temperature Entropy can decrease locally if it increases elsewhere. Intuitive notions of “disorder” are of no relevance whatsoever. Any discussion of the Second Law that does not specifically define entropy and show how it relates to evolution is worthless.

Chemical reactions are not random. For example, the atoms in a crystal of table salt are arranged as below, with sodium and chlorine atoms in a strictly alternating square array. If we take the simple-minded approach that we have a one-half probability of getting a sodium or chlorine atom in each spot, the chance of getting 100 atoms arranged as below is (1/2)100 or one in 1.26 x 1030. That's roughly one followed by 30 zeros. According to this reasoning, table salt is impossible.

Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na
Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl
Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na Cl Na

But of course the reasoning is ridiculous. The chances of getting that arrangement of atoms is close to 100 per cent.

And we know DNA can arise from simpler chemicals because it does so every time your cells divide. Every haircut you get is proof of it. The missing half of the DNA strand is assembled from molecules in the cell fluids.

"But when cells divide, there's a pattern already available" say some anti-evolutionists. Try this: go to the lumber yard and buy the materials for a tool shed. Then put a set of plans on top of the pile, and let me know when the materials spontaneously assemble. I can pour gasoline onto a garbage pile and the molecules in the garbage won't suddenly get the urge to develop into gasoline, even though there's enough carbon and hydrogen to do it. The pattern means nothing. DNA replicates because it can spontaneously self-assemble.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
do any of the people that oppose evolution have any comments to make? i have seen quite a few of you posting these myths...



posted on Oct, 10 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Too many people have been posting on here without understanding the theory of evolution, so I thought I'd bump this ol' thread so that people can read up on what they're trying (unsuccessfully) to refute.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join